Hitchens Thinks We Should Intervene In Libya
I don't. I don't see our interventions in the Middle East (the Shah, Saddam, for example) as having very positive outcomes. Also, financially, we're really up shit's creek without a bent dime.
An excerpt of Hitchens' thinking is here:
Qaddafi senior has reached his Ceausescu moment: a full-dress (in the literal sense) meltdown into paranoia, megalomania, and delusion. His recent speeches and appearances have shown him stinking with madness and hysteria. His age and condition, at any rate, set a very sharp limit to the duration of his regime. If that regime implodes while he is still "in place," then all the grim consequences foreseen by the realists will be incurred in any case. Weapons will get into the wrong hands; divide-and-rule tactics (already a stock in trade) will intensify; religious and tribal passions will be deliberately inflamed. The main difference will be that we merely watched this happen....The Arab League has now itself broken with decades of torpor, declared the Qaddafi regime illegitimate, and called for the imposition of a no-fly zone. This unprecedented resolution, which is not contradicted by any measurable pro-Qaddafi opinion in the legendary "Arab street," seems to draw much of the sting from the realist concern about regional opinion. The Shiite population has not forgotten Qaddafi's role in the disappearance and presumed murder of Imam Musa Sadr; Saudi officials have been targeted by his death squads; many other states have cause to resent his criminal meddling over the years.
Qaddafi is also particularly disliked in Egypt, whose armed forces we have been sustaining at a high level of sophistication (and expense) for several decades. Should the Obama administration not now be pressing Egypt to give point to its Arab League vote and to take a share of responsibility for local law enforcement? It would be a great baptism of the new Egyptian republic. But, again, one hears only the sound of shuffling.
I like this guy, commenter Borsia Novak, on Slate -- especially the bit about the kite:
The US needs to stay out of Libya and get out of the Middle East entirely. In case nobody has noticed the US is bankrupt and can't afford to fly a kite in Libya let alone air cover.As to the threat of losing aircraft to Libyan air defenses? Kind of a joke considering that we took out the entire Iraqi air force at a cost of something like 3 planes. The Iraqi military was huge and sophisticated compared to Libya. We could simply take out the air bases with cruise missiles.
But the fact that we can do something in no way means that we should. The best way to get out of another entanglement is not to get into it in the first place.
I also liked George Bush's "No nation building" declaration -- which was his policy...until it wasn't his policy and we dove into Iraq. (I was all for going after Osama Bin Laden and flattening the mountains of Afghanistan, if need be. I'm not anti-war, and I think Saddam was a bad guy, but that we shouldn't be acting as the world's policeman.)
Oh yeah, those "WMD"? That guy was about as credible a source as the guy who sits outside the coffee shop in my neighborhood begging for change.
I'm not sure where the "WMD" came from but any industialized nation has them, period.
And Iraq had more than most. C'mon. Israel bombed them for it.
Radwaste at March 15, 2011 2:15 AM
The time to intervene in Libya was when the uprising first started. A few carefully targeted cruise missiles would have made all of the difference. One needn't have even admitted to the deed - there would just have been some well-placed, entirely deniable explosions. If Obama had the balls of a mouse, he would have seized the opportunity.
Unfortunately, Obama doesn't think that way - it was far more important to be seen posturing on television. By then it was already too late; the rebels had already started losing.
@RadWaste: Iraq had nothing worth the huge costs the USA has incurred. This was a war started by GWB, in a futile attempt to prove himself as good a man as his father.
a_random_guy at March 15, 2011 7:13 AM
I tend to agree Amy. The world has to stop expecting the US to enforce order. Why can't Egypt do it? They have the capability. Think globally, act locally.
That doesn't apply where there are mutual defense treaties involved - I for one am very glad that the ANZUS treaty is there, if Australia is ever invaded you'll come to our aid. And we invoked the same treaty and participated meaningfully in Afghanistan on the grounds that it was an attack on you. But for Libya? Why is that your problem?
Ltw at March 15, 2011 7:50 AM
Deniable until someone picks up the pieces of the missile and notices "USA" stamped on it.
Not really. Remember that other noisy revolution a few weeks ago? That was Egypt. Right now, the Egyptians are kinda busy putting together their own country.
Everyone's waiting for the UN to act and the UN needs the US to act because the Chinese and Russians have veto power in the Security Council. Unfortunately, Barry is waiting for the UN to act.
So, we all sit around waiting (or dying in the case of Libyan rebels).
Conan the Grammarian at March 15, 2011 8:57 AM
It is two wars that led the US to a near-bankrupt treasury and resulted in thousands of dead Americans. Intervention in Libya would mean another pointless war and would just worsen the financial situation of the country. Americans should solve their financial problems first.
Elli Davis at March 15, 2011 11:03 AM
Blaming the U.S. deficit on the Iraq War is silly. The top three causes of the deficit are entitlements, entitlements, and entitlements. There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of W's actions in the Middle East, but this isn't one of them. So back on point...
I have to agree that there might have been an opportunity in Libya, as in Egypt, for a little covert action to bend things more in our favor. But Obama, as usual, missed the window. Too busy with his NCAA tournament bracket. At this point there's nothing to be done. I have no confidence that any possible outcome in Libya will be much better than Khadaffi; whatever pro-Western forces there might have been were likely wiped out weeks ago. The Arab League isn't calling for a no-fly zone because it's had a sudden attack of morals. It's calling for a no-fly zone because Khadaffi is no longer perceived as the strong horse. The League is simply trying to position itself to be on the winning side, whichever side that turns out to be. One other thing...
"Deniable until someone picks up the pieces of the missile and notices "USA" stamped on it."
That's going to happen whether we actually did it or not, so it shouldn't be a factor in the decision process. When someone pops up with that scrap of metal on Al Jazeera, the universal response should always be: "Yeah, so what?"
Cousin Dave at March 15, 2011 5:41 PM
Conan, the Egyptian military wasn't affected by the uprisings there, and they're in charge in the interim. They've also got a very respectable airforce, including over 200 F-16s. If they really wanted to, I have no doubt they could shut down Libyan airspace. Of course, the politics of that is another story. Perhaps the big O could point out to them that the US paid for a lot of that airforce and that it's time for them to pony up some action in return?
It's too late now though, the rebels are losing.
Ltw at March 15, 2011 5:45 PM
Qaddafi is also particularly disliked in Egypt, whose armed forces we have been sustaining at a high level of sophistication (and expense) for several decades. Should the Obama administration not now be pressing Egypt to give point to its Arab League vote and to take a share of responsibility for local law enforcement? It would be a great baptism of the new Egyptian republic.
AS you may have gathered, I agree with this completely. Don't go round calling for action unless you're willing to be the one who does it. They don't need UN authorisation, local self defense and humanitarian concerns are good enough, as they were in Bosnia and Kosovo. And the Egyptian military backed up by other countries in the Arab League could roll over Qaddafi's forces without breaking a sweat.
A no-fly zone won't cut it anymore though. They would have to deploy ground forces, probably to Benghazi, to defend the rebels and ultimately push the government troops back. Right now, they're the only ones who could get sufficient force there fast enough to do it.
No, I don't think it will happen either.
Ltw at March 15, 2011 6:01 PM
How are proponents of intervention so damn sure that the rebels aren't bigger assholes than the regime they would replace?
Second, if a rebellion can't muster enough support to stand a chance in a civil war, doesn't that tell you everything?
(BTW, my view of Afghanistan is that we should have done what we did and then left. The message being; go against the US and we kill you, but we don't rebuild your damn country.)
Joe at March 15, 2011 7:47 PM
At this point -- fuck 'em until they actually ask for help.
We should also dissolve our relations with NATO.
I would say that we put every base in Europe in caretaker status. Deploy the troops every single mile along the Mexican border.
Let Europe and the Middle East burn. Then start drilling in the Gulf and the reserves in North Dakota and portions of South Dakota.
After that -- we can be the world's policemen again -- if they want us to be. Otherwise bite me.
Jim P. at March 15, 2011 9:52 PM
Well, Jim P, the rebels have already asked for help. I still maintain that help should be outsourced to Egypt. I knew they had the most powerful army in the Middle East, but even I've been a bit surprised on doing some reading.
Did you know they manufacture M1 Abrams tanks under license and have over a thousand of them? Plus 1400 odd M-60s. Lots of artillery and air defense stuff too of course. If they decide to intervene, Qaddafi will wet himself and run. I doubt he has anywhere near the combat power to stand up to them.
We (Australia) bought a bunch of second hand Abrams to replace our old Leopard tanks. About 70 or so as I recall. We're hoping that one day we'll be able to build an expeditionary combined arms force of roughly battalion strength that we can ship and support overseas. In the meantime our dickhead foreign minister (former Prime Minister) is running around trying to drum up support for a no fly zone - one that we can't contribute to in any meaningful way. Asshole.
Ltw at March 16, 2011 3:30 AM
How are proponents of intervention so damn sure that the rebels aren't bigger assholes than the regime they would replace?
My thoughts exactly. Qaddaffi is nuts, but we had him pretty much tamed. These new guys - hardcore Islamists maybe - who knows?
kishke at March 16, 2011 11:14 AM
I'm going to have to agree with kishke on the Islamists.
The middle east (southwest Asia) and the majority of the Africa are in the U.N. -- but how many have been running around for decades with a government that truly encourages democracy. Or even a republican form of government.
Jim P. at March 16, 2011 9:09 PM
three or more dias! any la madre, sigues disadvantage dialup?
rockgranelac1996 at July 24, 2011 11:53 PM
Enjoyable write-up. Ended up have you were given lots of the info out of :)
feivelneidang1996 at July 29, 2011 1:11 AM
Wonderful, that's exactly some tips i was looking for! Notebook unspent others a whole bunch of do the job
resralictai1972 at July 30, 2011 4:36 AM
Thank you this unique article. I design out and about a considerable amount of ideas into written text files and it's bee and challenging to control generate an income handle any assigned option mainly because it changes
nenlimopick1634 at August 1, 2011 10:15 AM
|I searched for something completely different, but found your website! And have to say thanks. Nice read. Will come back.|Thank you very much for the information great post, found it on Yahoo.|I hope you will keep updating your content constantly as you have one dedicated reader here.|Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will add backlink ¨C bookmark this site? Regards, Reader.|I agree with your Blog and I will be back to check it more in the future so please keep up your work. I love your content & the way that you write. It looks like you¡¯ve been doing this for a while now, how long have you been blogging for?|After reading you site, Your site is very useful for me .I bookmarked your site!|Good share,you article very great, very usefull for us...thank you|Thanks for sharing this. |Very good sharing this. |Nice|Great sharing this. |Really good sharing this. |Good|Story, i enjoyed sharing this.|Enjoyed reading
anexdne78 at August 15, 2011 1:01 AM
Well... for being entirely sincere, My spouse and i don't expect to discover this type of info in error, while I did, simply because Recently i stumbled upon your own article while I became really managing a search on Yahoo, looking to find something similar although not the exact same... Nevertheless today I am greater than delighted you just read that as well as I would really like to provide that the point of view will be remarcable despite the fact that a bit controversial on the known... I'd somewhat point out it is approximately controversy... nevertheless I am just scared to help you my foe, ', ', '... At any rate, if you want to speak in more detail regarding it, you need to answer to my personal comment and also I'll try and sign up in order that I will be informed are available again here for much more...
anzachise at August 15, 2011 1:01 AM
We're happier for you personally due to this fact reliable information. You really did make my own time :
RJBalbaton161163 at August 21, 2011 12:08 PM
Leave a comment